> Are we sure this isn't true?

I don't know of any studies, but I suspect there would be some.

In addition to the question of "how do we share income in a less-work world?", there is the question "how do we ensure that the are opportunities for everyone to contribute something meaningful to society?"

Ideally those questions would connect - we would use our increased product(ivity) to fund a wider range of human endeavours that might not have been considered "economically productive" in previous generations.

I don't know what that looks like, but I would hope it means more art and science, rather than more soul crushing, meaningless busy-work.

Or even, how many researchers are working at McDonald's because their families' circumstances didn't afford them other opportunities, including ability to further their education?

Maybe not many, but I feel pretty confident that number is greater than 0.

While it may be informative, one of the differences between UBI and simply expanding current welfare programs is cultural. Right now, being out of a job is considered shameful, and it's often isolating (since "everyone" else is working while you're not). Even in my holiday-friendlier (compared to the US) EU country, the fact that an unemployed person takes a few days from searching for work to go to the beach is met with scorn.

One of the hopes of UBI is that when everyone receives a salary just from being alive, and working earns you extra on top of that, whether one works become more of a choice (like living frugally) instead of a failure, and loneliness is reduced when unemployment isn't an evil to combat, and more people choose to do something else.

I hope that too. But I don't think it's very likely. I guess we'll find out via the coming experiments.